Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,15:21)Do you have another theory to offer up for the data, Mr. Hunter? I'd love to hear it -- I mean, thus far all you've done is to avoid that as well.

I'd love to hear it too. I've been asking for DECADES to see a scientific theory of creation or ID, along with a demonstration of how to test it using the scientific method.

Alas, all I have ever gotten are various versions of "Jesus saves!" or "I don't have to tell you."

It's almost enough to make me think that . . . well . . . there *IS NO* scientific theory of creation or ID, and all those creation "scientists" and ID "theorists" are just . . . well . . . LYING to us when they claim there is.

Are IDers lying to us when they claim there is a scientific theory of ID, Doc . . . . ?

If so, then Judge Jones was right, wasn't he.

If not, then . . . um . . . would you mind then telling us what that scientific theory of ID *is*?

If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.

IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism". What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine? Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?, and(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?

And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer. Pick any similarity between thylacines and wolves if you feel that will help.

Again, you're looking at features that are relatively easy to modify (skull size/proportions) vs. ones that are not (pentadactyl pattern). This seems quite simple, so I'm not sure where your confusion is coming from. You're comparing structure to proportion.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

I know my questions must seem terribly naďve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?

Do shellfish show a pentadactyl pattern? But shellfish share some very common traits (the SHELL) while exhibiting vastly different body types (CRAB versus SHRIMP) while maintaining that distinct similarity (the SHELL).

NESTED HIERARCHY Mr. Hunter. Nowhere in my explanation do I invoke evolutionary terminology OTHER THAN the tree of life. We can compare similarities in structure (not shape) and function and form a nested hierarchy that will construct a tree of life. All of this is based upon direct measurement of facts.

Now, the theory of evolution takes these facts and ties them together into the theoretical model that defines common descent.

However, the tree of life, when constructed by measurements of homologous structures of living and fossil organisms IS NOT INVOKING EVOLUTION.

If YOU have a seperate interpretation of the measurement of homologous structures of living and fossil organisms then WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT.

Quote

I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.

I call Shenanigans. This statement on Reynold's Number is only used to cofuse the issue. We aren't aruing about the releative OPTIMUM of design, only that the PATH of design can occur to solve the problem (flight) through seperate paths with seperate structures (pentadactyl on one hand and insect structure on the other).

Quote

Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way? And when they ask “says who?” how do I respond? I’m afraid saying “Evolutionists” isn’t going to cut it.

SO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE SAID INSTEAD OF NOT LIKING WHAT IS BEING SAID.

Quote

And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.

Are you done philosiphising? Are you ready to put your own words down to point out "the problems" you've identified above? Or are you just going to vent some more.

PLEASE TELL US THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH USING GENETIC AND BIOCHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS TO COMPARE HOMOLOGIES.

Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so? It seems strange that the answer is that we need first to understand the evidence in the context of other evidences, most of which were not available to Darwin, for instance. But be that as it may, these other evidences bring along their own problems. I think most people will gladly accept such evidences as supports for the homology evidential argument, but only when they are not force-fit to evolution in the first place. If we brush problems under the rug, then we’re not following the data. Instead, we’re presenting a theory-laden interpretation of the evidences.

So are you saying that evolutionists don't use homology consistently, and if they did, then homology might not support common descent? Please be clear here.

Since I still don't understand your point, let me just say this: When scientists interpret the pentadactyl limb as homologous across tetrapods, they assume that changing the basic structure of the limb bones is more difficult than simply altering their relative proportions. Some scientists may also surmise that a creator is free to modify his (its) designs to maximise their usefulness, so we'd expect substantially different limb structures across creatures in different environments. This evidence is indeed entangled in background assumptions. Yet look where this leads: given the above, the pentadactyl limb suggests a common ancestor for tetrapods under evolutionary theory. The theory then predicts that other measures of relatedness will group tetrapods together relative to other creatures. So look at the pentadactyl limb as a prediction, with subsequent analyses verifying that prediction. Now it's true that you can't use the same evidence to generate and test a hypothesis, so under this reasoning the limbs can't be used as evidence. But it does count as a prediction, and the subsequent morphological and molecular analyses would therefore be powerful evidence for common descent.

Makes perfect sense? If this is your claim then we are on the same page, but the evolution claim here is that it is powerful evidence.

Quote

I know my questions must seem terribly naďve, but perhaps you will put up with one more. I’m still unclear as to why homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence (perhaps you do not think they are). If, as you point out with your dog example, proportions are easier to evolve than differences in structure, then how did all the structural differences we find in organisms evolve? Why is it that those differences present no big problem whereas the pentadactyl pattern pattern is “hard” to evolve, and so stand as powerful evidence? Now, let’s see, where’s that community college catalog?

Quote

I appreciate this good description of the evolution perspective. But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence?

Quote

Again, this is subjective. I’m supposed to say limb homologies are powerful evidence for evolution because it is “unlikely” they would be designed that way?

Quote

Evolutionists claim that homologies such powerful evidence. The question is: Why is this so?

Quote

Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence.

"POWERFUL EVIDENCE" has been a Cornelius Hunter mantra from the beginning of this thread. I have encountered this terminology in theology and law, but not in a scientific context. Is there an epistemological point here, or is it empty rhetoric?

--------------"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

"POWERFUL EVIDENCE" has been a Cornelius Hunter mantra from the beginning of this thread. I have encountered this terminology in theology and law, but not in a scientific context. Is there an epistemological point here, or is it empty rhetoric?

But how can I use this to argue that homologies are powerful evidence? For instance, your comparison of insect flight with bird/bat flight fails. The Reynolds number difference alone renders the comparison problematic, but there are other issues as well. I have never built a bird or a bat, and so I do not have a good understanding of how arbitrary are their wing designs, but the idea insect wing design reveals that bird wing design is arbitrary is erroneous.

As someone else noted, the Reynold's number difference is more of a red herring than anything else. (For example, the group of "flying insects" includes a dragonfly with a 6 ft wingspan.) More importantly, all these flying groups exist, but each group maintains its own unique innovations. Whatever differences you come up with in how the different groups fly will be trumped by the existence of flightless birds, like ostriches and flightless rails, that still maintain basic bird hand-and-wing construction.

Quote

And you run into more problems with your appeal to genetic and biochemical character traits. These present incongruities all over the map. And your appeal to development pathways and genes is yet another problem for the evolutionary homology argument. Often homologies arise from different pathways and genes.

Those sorts of things pose difficulties, but not insuperable problems. If all those separate things align, then homology is hard to refute. If they fail to align and a biologist still thinks the features are homologous (which can happen), then the biologist needs some fancy evidence to support that claim. If you, CH, want to dispute homology then you have to demonstrate that biochemistry, DNA, developmental histories, and nested hierarchies involving minor nonfunctional features can be achieved other than by common descent.

Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.

Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?...

Well don't answer Lenny if you are unable.

Perhaps you haven’t read through the posts. I did answer Lenny -- I needed clarification but no reply:

So clarify. What is the "Theory of Inteligent Design"?

Sorry Mr. Hunter,But so far you have answered just about nothing.Look, I am possibly the least educated person on this board. Yet I have no problem spotting the quality of your "answers". You sound like a politician/lawyer/debater rather than a scientist.Do you think normal people cannot see the evasiveness not only in your "answers" but even in the weasly non-specific questions, worded in such a way as to be able to claim "that is not what I meant" when somebody gives an honest atempt at a reply?

Anyway, an answer to the most basic question would be a start. What is the "Theory of Intelligent Design"?

Don't tell me that is too difficult to answer. If it is (too difficult), maybe ID is not science.

Anything that doesn't agree with his teaspoon of urine as honey , is just waved away in the time honored fashion of the Priest or Politician.

It must be hard being a failed fraud as well as a failed scientist .......eh CH?

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Actually, it's not subjective or circular , and that is a misrepresentation of what I did say. I specifically noted that the flying squirrel and phalanger don't have structurally identical patagium...BUT their pentadactyly IS precisely the same.

Why do you find it to be significant that the pentadactyl pattern is “precisely the same”? Are you claiming that the homology evidential claim would falter if this were not the case?

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

Further, I am in fact arguing that skin attachments and increased skin area in between attachments IS in fact easier for a strain of animals to change than basic bone structure...

OK, good...

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

why do I say that? Because we have no large-scale evidence of septadactyly or octadactyly to point to. We have only pentadactyl mammals on the planet.

Why is it important that septadactyly or octadactyly is not found in “large-scale”? And why is it important that mammals have only pentadactyl?

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

Further, we can conduct experiments showing that basic bauplan features are far less susceptible to mutation and alteration than skin attachments to bone, especially under selection by the environment and reproductive success.

So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?

Trust me, your evidential argument for a theory is going to be stronger if it does not entail conclusions that flow from the theory itself. If you disagree, then so be it. But I’m looking for justifications that are free of such theory laden-ness. More below.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

can you please explain your association with DI?

I am a Fellow, which is a fairly loose association. I need not agree with DI on anything in particular, and vice versa. I have not been given the secret handshake.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

2. How did you determine that characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim?

The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution. The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.

Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

It is not a matter of whether or not theory-free observations are possible. Perhaps all observations are theory-laden, but the theory-laden-ness need not be particular to the theory one is trying to advocate. Here’s an example. An astronomer makes observations of distant galaxies and constructs a new theory about galaxies. His observations are laden with assumptions about the universality of natural laws, for instance. But such assumptions are generally accepted by his audience, though his new theory is not. The theory-laden-ness of his observations is not the problem. Rather, his new theory does not fit all the observations very well, though no one objects to the theory-laden-ness of the observations.

On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly .

The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution. The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.

And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"

But the genetic and developmental evidence need not be theory laden (that is, in ways that are peculiar to evolutionary theory). That’s the key.

Trust me, your evidential argument for a theory is going to be stronger if it does not entail conclusions that flow from the theory itself.

Given your rather obvious aversion to answering direct questions, Mr. Hunter, you'll understand why I don't "trust you" on this or any other point. You have refused to answer a number of those, like WHAT SPECIFIC characters you wish to compare pentadactyly to. You also refuse to answer what ALTERNATE theory you hold to that can be similarly examined.

I asked for specific examples of characters that you wanted me to compare pentadactyly to. You still can't respond except to point at pretty pictures and say " look at their skulls and body shape and sharp teeth" ( those are your specific comments) Well, what about their skulls? The fact that they are generally what? WEDGE-shaped? That they have orbital bones in common? What?

What about their body shape, Mr. Hunter? That they are quadrupeds? What about their digitigrade locomotion? What other animals possess that? Are mammals with this condition that we see today fast runners? Do I need the taint of Darwinian theory to tell me that? No. You ignore all the observations that can be made about how the hunting carnivory lifestyle of the two animals would lead to vaguely similar skulls, with similarly "sharp teeth" You ignore that carnivore skulls like the mustelids follow the same pattern, or mongooses, or many other examples. Will you argue that a weasel skull and wolf skull and "sharp teeth" and quadrupedal form are all "powerful evidence " of something? If so, what?

You rely on this claim of "you can't use that because it's 'theory-laden' " when I point out that Australia is known (in a evolutionary-theory-free way) to have split off from other land masses 30-35 million years ago.

You ignore the fossil data ( which can be observed in an "evolution-free-way") --that shows the marsupial "wolf" to be distinct from C. Lupus -- for the same spurious reason.

You use the same unsupported premise when you disallow genetic data (by the way, Mr. Hunter, your caricature of how genetic phylogenies are done is hilarious.)

I have a little gift for you, Mr. Hunter. When I first read your little screed here, I was reminded of something: Faust. This was, of course, written by Goethe.

Goethe wrote many other things, one of which was " The Metamorphosis of Animals" (1816). Here's a quote: "...the way of life powerfully reacts on form.Thus the orderly growth of form is seen to hold, Whilst yielding to change from externally acting causes."

Note that Goethe was able ( prior to Darwin) see that similar niches can and would lead to SOME similarities that have little basis in immediate common descent.

Quote

If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer.

See above. I don't HAVE to presuppose evolution in order to say that radiometric dating of fossils and geology shows that they cannot have immediate common descent.

I'll go back to my little thought experiment, Mr. Hunter: **************************************************************************I wish to present two VERY long-lived and industrious beings that tirelessly investigated life on this planet. These beings are merely going to observe and gather data prior to formulating a hypothesis about the data. I will call these hypothetical beings the WE..and I submit to you that WE will find these things:

1.Time exists, along with various ways of measuring it. One powerfully-justified way of measuring will be called "Radiometric"2. Organisms on this planet fall into large-scale groupings based on similar morphology and DNA that WE can call "reptiles" "amphibians" and "mammals." There are of course, other groups, but for now, let's concentrate on "mammals" that have specific features. 3. In observing the mammal group, pentadactyly is seen to be universal at the moment. WE have also observed that animals are born, give birth and die. When they give birth, variation in offspring is seen. Those variations can result in better/worse opportunities for a long life and breeding4. Using observation of extant mammals, WE can group them according to characteristics that WE observe. WE can also note that observed LOCOMOTION AND DIET aid in sorting animals into quasi-Linnean groups without invoking common descent. 5. WE find raised heels and sharp teeth in deer (yes, deer can bite and have "sharp teeth," so do horses) wolves, cats, lots of species, but not all. We observe that deer don't consistently eat meat and are not carnivores, but canids and felines are, as were some marsupials like Thylacines. WE observe that carnivory and herbivory and omnivory are most often accompanied by differing teeth and surface features of teeth. 6. WE can examine the DNA of such species and further refine groupings. Contrary to your claim that such studies NECCESSITATE some evolutionary bias, I challenge YOU, Mr. Hunter, to demonstrate that this is so.7. Using radiocarbon dating WE can find recent examples of dead canids and felines and Thylacines. WE observe them to be the same structurally to modern ones. WE then find increasingly older but anatomically identical examples as WE tirelessly dig up and compare fossils and entire suites of anatomical characteristics.8. Reaching deeper into the bag of radiometric tools, WE find increasingly older forms of canids, felines, and Thylacines--- keeping in mind that in our thought -experiment our long-lived beings can dig a LONG time and can dig up fossils anywhere ( or everywhere) on Earth. WE find lots of **other** fossils, too and begin the same process of comparing KNOWN extant specimens to recently-dead and much more distantly-dead specimens of mammals and other groups. 9. WE refine such groups of fossils as well, based only on observed characteristics10. WE find that "raised heels" and "sharp mammalian CARNIVORE teeth" reflect diet and locomotion and are not found universally . WE find that pentadactyly is still universal in mammals even in the deep, deep past. 11. WE find that geology indicates Australia has been separate from other land masses for quite a long time, and that it was most recently connected to South America and Antarctica some 30-35 MYA. WE also observe that marsupials and mammals don't co-exist on Australia until recently. WE find that marsupials don't exist outside of Australia today except for Opossums. WE observe that only in deep time do WE find fossils bearing marsupial characters.

Given that locomotive modes and diet coincide with specific forms of teeth and digitigrade anatomy today, and given that WE have a "theoretically" NEAR-PERFECT fossil collection to compare current forms and ancient forms, given that We can use DNA comparatives, given that WE can isolate thylacines to Australia AND given that marsupial Thylacine dentition and multiple other characteristics are quite different from Wolf dentition and basio-cranial morphology, epipubic bones, etc., AND given that WE can show evolution occurs today, and given that Geology gives an evolutionarily-unbiased set of dates based on rocks that contain fossils....the question is why do YOU NOT view pentadactyly and dentition or digitigrade locomotion as carrying different value in constructing relatedness-relationships?

So... what do YOU say our hypothetical beings should do at this point? Place "sharp carnivore teeth," "wedge-shaped skull" and "digitigrade locomotion" as being homologous or homoplasic ? If you select homologous or homoplasic, Justify your answer.

1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?

Trust me, your evidential argument for a theory is going to be stronger if it does not entail conclusions that flow from the theory itself. If you disagree, then so be it. But I’m looking for justifications that are free of such theory laden-ness. More below.

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 05 2007,14:59)

I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

It is not a matter of whether or not theory-free observations are possible. Perhaps all observations are theory-laden, but the theory-laden-ness need not be particular to the theory one is trying to advocate. Here’s an example. An astronomer makes observations of distant galaxies and constructs a new theory about galaxies. His observations are laden with assumptions about the universality of natural laws, for instance. But such assumptions are generally accepted by his audience, though his new theory is not. The theory-laden-ness of his observations is not the problem. Rather, his new theory does not fit all the observations very well, though no one objects to the theory-laden-ness of the observations.

On the other hand, let’s look at an evolution example. An evolutionist uses DNA sequence data to construct phylogenies. First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions.

Ah, I see. You've concluded that the conclusions are flimsy, and no matter how much confirmatory evidence is found, you will continue to contend that the conclusions are still flimsy. So, it doesn't matter how many times the theory turns out to be right. You've already decided that it isn't right, so all those confirmations of the theory are therefore "theory-laden" and therefore wrong. Nice one.

Unlike you, I will answer EACH of your questions, Mr. Hunter ( while noting that you have failed to do the same ).

Quote

Why do you find it to be significant that the pentadactyl pattern is “precisely the same”? Are you claiming that the homology evidential claim would falter if this were not the case?

I find it significant in terms of homology because it has great time-depth that is unaltered IN. Yes, YOU can point to bats or Horses and say "look at the differences" between bats and horses and canids, but the fact remains that their five digits at the distal ends of limbs...remain precisely the same. You probably will be able to gull the public, though. People are often swayed by selective illustrations that ignore that EVERY mammal has pentadactyly.

Of course you'll exploit the "similarities" while ignoring the differences in other characters...wait...you already have done that.

For myself, yes, the pentadactyly evidence FOR common descent would fall apart IF...IF we saw that Miocene mammals were all octadactyl and that octadactyl mammals existed today.

Quote

Why is it important that septadactyly or octadactyly is not found in “large-scale”? And why is it important that mammals have only pentadactyl?

See above

Quote

So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.

Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?

Not "insubstantial," no. I have made my point clear. It is up to you to read and comprehend.

Now, Mr. Hunter...given that I have addressed EACH of your questions, please answer mine.Do environmental constraints and feeding patterns and locomotion have an effect on "design space" that is NOT neutral in regards to selection?

What SPECIFICALLY is your "alterate theory" Mr. Hunter? You mentioned it in passing and I'd like to hear it. I have defended my views. Let's see what yours are, without your usual evasion.

Don't be shy, Mr. hunter -- I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Make sure you respond to my posts FULLY, Mr. Hunter. Don't be so stingy with your responses. Inquiring minds want to know.

Ah, I see. You've concluded that the conclusions are flimsy, and no matter how much confirmatory evidence is found, you will continue to contend that the conclusions are still flimsy. So, it doesn't matter how many times the theory turns out to be right. You've already decided that it isn't right, so all those confirmations of the theory are therefore "theory-laden" and therefore wrong. Nice one.

Yup. Your observation, GCT, is remarkably similar to my observation and objection that I had noted earlier in the thread:

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,06:30)

Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it: 1. You arrive and say

Quote

How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"

3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.

4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;

5. Repeat #1.

Very cute, sir!

Interesting how many unsupported premises Mr. hunter uses...and how he consistently avoids dealing with his circular approaches.

And how he consistently avoids describing his claimed theory that is "ignored" by evolutionists in accounting for what we observe.

If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.

IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism". What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine? Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?, and(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?

Thank you once again for not answering my simple questions, Dr Hunter.

Don't be too certain about that. While I do not understand most of the science in this discussion, I can spot (very easily) just who is avoiding questions.

That's what I don't understand about Dr. Hunter. If he really believes that his argument is strong, he should welcome questions. Yet he won't even clarify his position for a layman like myself. That says something, I think.

This is an excellent thread. The emptiness of Mr Hunter's arguments have been clearly shown with no real insults. I think that Mr Hunter regrets ever posting here but also realises all of the potential suckers that will google his name and find this thread, so he keeps coming back but unfortunately digging himself deeper.

So is this then an evidential problem for evolution? For if basic baupan is hard to evolve, then how did evolution create such a menagerie? On the one hand, you want to argue that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence because, after all, it is so very difficult to modify. Therefore, when we observe it in different species, this must be evidence that the design was inherited from a common ancestor. But this is a curious argument to make when, on the other hand, we are saying evolution not only created the pentadactyl pattern, but very many other bauplan features over time.

Let's find out when the pentadactyl pattern occurs during organism development. If it is early in the embryonic stage then the pattern could be considered "set" for all homologous creatures. After all, within the nested hierarchy of pentadactyl patterns we don't see ANY alterations to this pattern. We do see alterations to the FUNCTION of the pattern, but the pattern remains the same. Maybe alteration (read mutation) of this basic pattern causes too much developmental stress within the organism (there are too many faults expressed in a fully grown creature because of this mutation) that override any potential benefit from a change in this pattern.

Isn't the pentadactyl pattern a fundamental item in embryonic development just like notochords or hemispheric symmetry?

The Thylacine showed many similarities to the members of the Canidae (dog) family of the Northern Hemisphere: sharp teeth, powerful jaws, raised heels and the same general body form. This is an example of convergent evolution. The skulls of the Thylacine (left) and the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, are almost identical although the species are unrelated.

Are you saying similarities between thylacines and wolves are insubstantial compared to the bat and horse pentadactyl designs?

The developmental patterns between thylacine and wolves are teeth, jaws, heels and body forms. Answerring without "theory laden" explanations leads me to ask a couple questions about these two creatures.

1. What is the basic food chain of the thylacine and wolves?2. What is the hunting technique of these two creatures?

In (1.) I would answer that both creatures need to take down a variety of creatures both small and large. These are hunters more than scavengers most likely. The rate of food intake would probably require the creatures to fully consume any prey (as opposed to choice bits like lions) which would require consumption of not only meaty items but also of bone marrow. Since cracking bones requires set amount of forces I would surmise that the heavy set and muscular jaws are needed. Ever seen a hyena? Hunts in packs, hunter more than scavenger, eats (or trys to) everything on the body, looks like a wolf or a thylacine too. Amazing.

In (2.) the hunting technique is a pack technique with a lopeing gait instead of a fast dash. These creatures work together in tandem to wear down their prey over time, not to rush their prey like the cats. If the thylacine hunted like a cat then I would expect the body shape to resemble a leopord or lion more than a wolf or hyena. Are hyena's and wolves related?

Quote

And answer this question: If species can exhibit similarities such as those in thylacines and wolves that are not due to common descent, then why must similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern be due to common descent? Do not merely explain the data according to evolution. This does not explain why it is powerful evidence. And do not presuppose evolution in your answer.

But the genetic and developmental evidence need not be theory laden (that is, in ways that are peculiar to evolutionary theory). That’s the key.

My premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is buried deep within the embryonic stage of all the organisms that express this pattern. Changes to this pattern result in non-survivable offspring.

However, similarities with creatures who's environmental habits and lifestyle habits coincide lead to body plan developments that take advantage of that niche that they occupy.

What about Allosaurus and Tyranosaurus? They were only seperated by 90 million years (give or take). Yet their body plans are SO SIMILAR. Why don't we make this comparison to support evolution?

Mr. Hunter.Are you going to get specific or do we continue with this charade. Actually, please be MORE condescending with us laymen. I'm just an engineer and my biology terminology stinks. Yet your latest attempt at conflation leaves me chuckling.